[quote]pat wrote:
The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. [/quote]
False… The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. If I claim “There is an invisible, floating dragon in my garage” it is not on everyone else to disprove that statement, it is on me to provide evidence. The problem with putting the burden on the other side is that NO amount of “disproving” will ever be sufficient, while only one piece of evidence is enough to lend credibility.
Also, no one is doubting that he had the experience, just his interpretation of it.[/quote]
He already laid out his claim and supports for it. Once he’s done that, then it shifts. It doesn’t eternally stay on the claimant to provide endless amounts of evidence. He said “Here’s what happened, here’s why it’s true.” [/quote]
The thing is he provides no evidence for his claim. If I tried to make a case to arrest my neighbor for robbery based on something I saw when I was asleep, I doubt anyone would take that seriously. All he has is a claim, with no backup.[/quote]
Really? So you didn’t read this part:
“This is clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.”
So documented lack of brain activity while experiencing this is no backup of his physiological state?
[quote]pat wrote:
The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. [/quote]
False… The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. If I claim “There is an invisible, floating dragon in my garage” it is not on everyone else to disprove that statement, it is on me to provide evidence. The problem with putting the burden on the other side is that NO amount of “disproving” will ever be sufficient, while only one piece of evidence is enough to lend credibility.
Also, no one is doubting that he had the experience, just his interpretation of it.[/quote]
He already laid out his claim and supports for it. Once he’s done that, then it shifts. It doesn’t eternally stay on the claimant to provide endless amounts of evidence. He said “Here’s what happened, here’s why it’s true.” [/quote]
The thing is he provides no evidence for his claim. If I tried to make a case to arrest my neighbor for robbery based on something I saw when I was asleep, I doubt anyone would take that seriously. All he has is a claim, with no backup.[/quote]
Really? So you didn’t read this part:
“This is clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.”
So documented lack of brain activity while experiencing this is no backup of his physiological state?[/quote]
Temporal distortion with memories is common. This is the case with dreams. I’ve had plenty of dreams that seem to stretch a lengthy period of time, but in fact occur within a span of 10 minutes. Most people have. Researchers have documented this, it’s not even really a point of discussion. The difference is, when I wake up from a dream, I can quickly realize that the dream that I thought lasted for days didn’t actually, because I can look at a clock.
[quote] pat wrote: How is it more likely? There is nothing stating that his experience was likely generated by his brain.
[/quote]
Except the entirety of Neuroscience, that states that consciousness and experience is solely generated by the brain.
The claims he is making essentially overturn the entire field… I’m not saying its not true, but it is HIGHLY unlikely, and one that would need a bit more “proof” than “I had a crazy dream.”
[quote] Since all physical facts are matters of consensus, you couldn’t really know unless you had confirmation from others. If a single person tells a blind man the sky is red, the blind man has no way of knowing unless he gets consensus from others that it is not.
The problem is that this is a singular personal experience, so consensus flies out the window. Based on you experience in life and all the information you have recieved through out it, you beleive his experience is brain generated. But there is no evidence, by consensus or otherwise that his personal experience wasn’t exactly what he stated it was. [/quote]
I completely agree that there is no evidence that this one, singular case does not defy everything we currently know about the brain, consciousness, and in fact the universe itself. It may very well have been the case that he journeyed to Heaven. What I assert is that his experiences are perfectly in line with our current understanding of the brain and its pathophysiolgy, and its far more likely that he is not a unique case that transcended the universe to meet a hot blond chick with blue eyes and high cheek bones.
There have been many smart people throughout history who have succumbed to “feelings” or came up with useless explanations in times of stress or great emotion. I see this no differently. See: Issac Newton in regards to planetary motion.
[quote]Now this is actually consistent with epistemology and/ of metaphysics in that the metaphysical is indeed a ‘more real’ existence. Indeed metaphysics is in control of all that is physical. An atom cannot break the rules that guide it. Gravity is not stronger than it’s law. So being more conscious in a metaphysical state of existence is certainly consistent with reality itself.
So by his experience we only have his word, but metaphysics itself is a more real state. It’s a state where the senses cannot be fooled.
[/quote]
*Citation Needed. You are speaking nonsense here about Metaphysics in my opinion. Please provide evidence that “metaphysics itself is a more real state” and one where “the senses cannot be fooled”
However, your point about gravity and atoms is one I like, and indeed fits nicely in with my own idea that “consciousness cannot escape the brain.” Which IS supported by every data set we have in Neuroscience.
Fair enough.
[quote]He claims this all happened while his brain was “off” - But there is no reason to assume that is true. There would have been a period of time where his brain was “powering down” and likewise “coming back online” … Both of these times are ripe to have these kinds of feelings and emotions.
And you know this how?
[/quote]
Because the brain does not operate in an On/Off matter. As the meningitis took over his body his brain wouldn’t go from 100% to 0% function instantly, and then back to 100% when he was cured. It would go through varying degrees of functionality, each with their own unique characteristics and levels of consciousness and perception.
[quote]
You would have to demonstrate that these varied altered consistently produce these very profound experiences with a healthy degree of statistical significance. I know some attempts have been made with said ‘tunnel of light’ syndrome. However, they have no been conducted on people who have claimed the NDE and then been subjected to the test. Only they could tell you if it’s the same or not.
Then there is the other issue where people with NDE’s have known about people or things they could not have possibly known about. How can you accurately see places or people doing things while at the time, your technically dead. That doesn’t follow with the ‘it’s all in there head’ theory.[/quote]
By their nature, NDE’s are almost impossible to test as being “real”. Out-Of-Body experiences are an entirely different matter, and are easily testable. Something simple like writing a phrase on a piece of paper that is our of sight/reach of the person while they are awake would do the trick. I dont believe anyone has ever passed such a test.
If you do, you’ll be be arguing with those who are prone to jump to quick conclusions of “can’t be” based on their ignorant presuppositions.
I made no claims that insist this guy’s account is 100% accurate. What I did do is scoff at the scoffers who KNOW this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.[/quote]
With you on that. I don’t consider this experience particularly good evidence of anything. I also don’t think that writing it off as if it were impossible to be true is legitimate.
If you do, you’ll be be arguing with those who are prone to jump to quick conclusions of “can’t be” based on their ignorant presuppositions.
I made no claims that insist this guy’s account is 100% accurate. What I did do is scoff at the scoffers who KNOW this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.[/quote]
If you do, you’ll be be arguing with those who are prone to jump to quick conclusions of “can’t be” based on their ignorant presuppositions.
I made no claims that insist this guy’s account is 100% accurate. What I did do is scoff at the scoffers who KNOW this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.[/quote]
Typical Push.[/quote]
Careful BeefEater, push might ask you to start providing evidence for his argument.
[quote]Although I considered myself a faithful Christian, I was so more in name than in actual belief. I didn?t begrudge those who wanted to believe that Jesus was more than simply a good man who had suffered at the hands of the world. I sympathized deeply with those who wanted to believe that there was a God somewhere out there who loved us unconditionally. In fact, I envied such people the security that those beliefs no doubt provided. But as a scientist, I simply knew better than to believe them myself.[/quote] A clearly confused pagan who was experiencing anything other than heaven. The father of lies is at it again. Wadda shock.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Or Push might have you express some of your knowledge of the opposing viewpoint that you incessantly claim to have.[/quote]
You don’t need to have an in depth knowledge of neuroscience to know when something has been proven and when it has not. I don’t doubt the experience and I am in no way attempting to invalidate its effect on the author. But what he claims as “proof” is not.
[quote]pat wrote:
The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. [/quote]
False… The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. If I claim “There is an invisible, floating dragon in my garage” it is not on everyone else to disprove that statement, it is on me to provide evidence. The problem with putting the burden on the other side is that NO amount of “disproving” will ever be sufficient, while only one piece of evidence is enough to lend credibility.
Also, no one is doubting that he had the experience, just his interpretation of it.[/quote]
He already laid out his claim and supports for it. Once he’s done that, then it shifts. It doesn’t eternally stay on the claimant to provide endless amounts of evidence. He said “Here’s what happened, here’s why it’s true.” [/quote]
The thing is he provides no evidence for his claim. If I tried to make a case to arrest my neighbor for robbery based on something I saw when I was asleep, I doubt anyone would take that seriously. All he has is a claim, with no backup.[/quote]
Really? So you didn’t read this part:
“This is clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.”
So documented lack of brain activity while experiencing this is no backup of his physiological state?[/quote]
Temporal distortion with memories is common. This is the case with dreams. I’ve had plenty of dreams that seem to stretch a lengthy period of time, but in fact occur within a span of 10 minutes. Most people have. Researchers have documented this, it’s not even really a point of discussion. The difference is, when I wake up from a dream, I can quickly realize that the dream that I thought lasted for days didn’t actually, because I can look at a clock.
[/quote]
Temporal distortion is not really the issue. The fact that the senses are crude tools for understanding the world is all but a given.
[quote]pat wrote:
The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. [/quote]
False… The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. If I claim “There is an invisible, floating dragon in my garage” it is not on everyone else to disprove that statement, it is on me to provide evidence. The problem with putting the burden on the other side is that NO amount of “disproving” will ever be sufficient, while only one piece of evidence is enough to lend credibility.
Also, no one is doubting that he had the experience, just his interpretation of it.[/quote]
He already laid out his claim and supports for it. Once he’s done that, then it shifts. It doesn’t eternally stay on the claimant to provide endless amounts of evidence. He said “Here’s what happened, here’s why it’s true.” [/quote]
The thing is he provides no evidence for his claim. If I tried to make a case to arrest my neighbor for robbery based on something I saw when I was asleep, I doubt anyone would take that seriously. All he has is a claim, with no backup.[/quote]
Really? So you didn’t read this part:
“This is clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.”
So documented lack of brain activity while experiencing this is no backup of his physiological state?[/quote]
Temporal distortion with memories is common. This is the case with dreams. I’ve had plenty of dreams that seem to stretch a lengthy period of time, but in fact occur within a span of 10 minutes. Most people have. Researchers have documented this, it’s not even really a point of discussion. The difference is, when I wake up from a dream, I can quickly realize that the dream that I thought lasted for days didn’t actually, because I can look at a clock.
[/quote]
Temporal distortion is not really the issue. The fact that the senses are crude tools for understanding the world is all but a given.[/quote]
I get a very David Hume-y vibe from some of your posts. That’s a compliment by the way.
[quote]pat wrote:
The burden of proof shifts really to those who say he didn’t have it, or what he says about it wasn’t true. [/quote]
False… The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the positive claim. If I claim “There is an invisible, floating dragon in my garage” it is not on everyone else to disprove that statement, it is on me to provide evidence. The problem with putting the burden on the other side is that NO amount of “disproving” will ever be sufficient, while only one piece of evidence is enough to lend credibility.
Also, no one is doubting that he had the experience, just his interpretation of it.[/quote]
He already laid out his claim and supports for it. Once he’s done that, then it shifts. It doesn’t eternally stay on the claimant to provide endless amounts of evidence. He said “Here’s what happened, here’s why it’s true.” [/quote]
The thing is he provides no evidence for his claim. If I tried to make a case to arrest my neighbor for robbery based on something I saw when I was asleep, I doubt anyone would take that seriously. All he has is a claim, with no backup.[/quote]
Really? So you didn’t read this part:
“This is clear from the severity and duration of my meningitis, and from the global cortical involvement documented by CT scans and neurological examinations.”
So documented lack of brain activity while experiencing this is no backup of his physiological state?[/quote]
Temporal distortion with memories is common. This is the case with dreams. I’ve had plenty of dreams that seem to stretch a lengthy period of time, but in fact occur within a span of 10 minutes. Most people have. Researchers have documented this, it’s not even really a point of discussion. The difference is, when I wake up from a dream, I can quickly realize that the dream that I thought lasted for days didn’t actually, because I can look at a clock.
[/quote]
Temporal distortion is not really the issue. The fact that the senses are crude tools for understanding the world is all but a given.[/quote]
My point was referring to your statement “documented lack of brain activity while experiencing this is”. I was saying that the visions he supposedly had during this dormant period could very easily have occurred after or before, and then displaced in his memory. Sounds like you agree that this is a possibility.
Lmfao! Great voice acting Push. Species that adapt to their environment
thrive; those that fail to do so face extinction. The same is true for
ideas. Belief in God is perfectly rational, but claiming knowledge of the divine is an untenable position for the sane among us.
[quote] pat wrote: How is it more likely? There is nothing stating that his experience was likely generated by his brain.
[/quote]
Except the entirety of Neuroscience, that states that consciousness and experience is solely generated by the brain.
The claims he is making essentially overturn the entire field… I’m not saying its not true, but it is HIGHLY unlikely, and one that would need a bit more “proof” than “I had a crazy dream.”
[quote] Since all physical facts are matters of consensus, you couldn’t really know unless you had confirmation from others. If a single person tells a blind man the sky is red, the blind man has no way of knowing unless he gets consensus from others that it is not.
The problem is that this is a singular personal experience, so consensus flies out the window. Based on you experience in life and all the information you have recieved through out it, you beleive his experience is brain generated. But there is no evidence, by consensus or otherwise that his personal experience wasn’t exactly what he stated it was. [/quote]
I completely agree that there is no evidence that this one, singular case does not defy everything we currently know about the brain, consciousness, and in fact the universe itself. It may very well have been the case that he journeyed to Heaven. What I assert is that his experiences are perfectly in line with our current understanding of the brain and its pathophysiolgy, and its far more likely that he is not a unique case that transcended the universe to meet a hot blond chick with blue eyes and high cheek bones.
[/quote]
There is not that much known about the brain especially when it comes to consciousness. First, problem, is though we all have a sense of it we don’t really know what it is. So to because we cannot describe it fully, it really escapes the scientific realm in totality. We can break it down in to various assortment of “awareness’s” but it is more than that. Further, we cannot say it totally rooted in the brain as we don’t know what does and does not have consciousness. A rock could have it, we are only aware that other things have it through expression. If said object is conscious but not expressive we can’t know it does not have it.
The consciousness we express as humans is pretty low level. Most certainly it’s a vast deep well of understanding that we don’t have. It’s only the tip of the iceburg. While Neuroscience is doing it’s due diligence to to find out the link between consciousness and the brain, what is true is the science is in it’s infancy and it’s understanding will be over turned many times. Synapses, neurotransmitters and electro-chemical physiology may allow us to understand the link better, it’s not going to solve it. The science can understand the mechanisms but not consciousness itself. For indeed you could replicate the same neuro stimulation in like brains and not get the same thoughts or feelings necessarily.
I don’t really think this is about feelings. This is about a personal experience of super consciousness when the said brain in question was by all accounts not capable according to what is known about consciousness and the brain, and I do believe that was the point he was trying to make. I would hope he expounded more on the physiological situation in the book rather than the short article.
*Citation Needed. You are speaking nonsense here about Metaphysics in my opinion. Please provide evidence that “metaphysics itself is a more real state” and one where “the senses cannot be fooled”
[/quote]
Oh it would take a great deal more to understand this than a simple citation. Metaphysics deals with all non-physical reality. Here is a link that can give you a high level understanding of metaphysics. From the philosophical view, we tap into it through reason and logic, but that’s not it in total. It’s more real because metaphysics deals with deductive reasoning, deductive reasoning deals in absolutes. Scientific methodology is a posteriori and therefore deals with probabilities and likeliness based on correlational evidence and therefore, not aboslute, only possible with high probability.
You have it backwards. The laws of gravity would still exist if gravity did not. The laws of thermodynamics without energy or information. However, gravity could not be gravity with out the laws that govern it.
Because the brain does not operate in an On/Off matter. As the meningitis took over his body his brain wouldn’t go from 100% to 0% function instantly, and then back to 100% when he was cured. It would go through varying degrees of functionality, each with their own unique characteristics and levels of consciousness and perception.
It’s fine to be skeptical of them and indeed there is the fair share of quacks who poison the wells. I do agree they are normal natural phenomena, but it’s not stuck to the brain alone. You’d have to take them on a case by case basis,which is something we cannot do. The problem is they are rooted in personal experience which is requiring a certain degree of trust on the teller. Now, I would have to say that you would have to give it a 50/ 50 shot on being real, at least some of them. You cannot know unless you experience it, and then you have to deal with people not believing you no matter how compelling your story. If nobody sees you catch the big fish, they can trust you or distrust you.
Well I don’t think they are ‘testable’ per se. That would assume that a person has a great deal control over them and I am not familiar with those who do. But that is a different topic and one I am more skeptical of than NDE’s in general. So I would suggest staying on topic.